thats a play. A wants something. B actually agree, but cant agree openly. C say regulate, hold A responsible for problems, etc. the play beginns:
A wants more ressources and less regulation. Strong C make problems. B cant take position and free ressources, because C is strong and becoming stronger. A starts to make dangerous things. C is becomes even more opponent. A say ok, we need to slow down - then comes in B. Now B cant take position openly and say NO to slow down with reasons xx, yy. C is now weaker, because B can push and make C bigger problems. With C silenced and opposed by B who protects A, A can start to progress without C making problems, because B now supporting A and silences C.
C is like people who are against in any shape, be it against data centers, against copyright violations, etc..
A few thoughts:
I support AI acceleration to reach abundance and then and only then start regulating it, not before that.
Regulating early means just delaying abundance by 5 to 10 more years or maybe more.
I don't like to build something that will become useless due to AI after a few years. Let it advance to ASI (no need to release publicly) and then let everybody think about making it safe and aligned, then release.
Genuine question, because "abundance" is meaningless unless you qualify what you mean.
You're saying that we ask the ASI for "abundance" and everyone gets a mansion in silicon valley and doesn't need to work unless they want to? That doesn't seem like a realistic thing to be thinking about.
How do you think that AI will create "abundance?" Are you thinking that it will somehow magically come up with solutions to climate change, war, corruption, the wealth gap, or any of the other ills that keep the majority of humanity scrambling to survive? Or do you just mean abundance for stockholders?
I think that a chance of getting things like material post-scarcity, age reversal, possibly even biological immortality... might be worth a 10% chance of human extinction.
I mean, we already know more or less how things are going to go without super-intelligence. Disease, pain, suffering, everyone dying by age 120 or so, more struggle for bread, more wars about things that seem very important in the moment but won't be interesting to anyone other than history buffs 100 years from now, more love affairs that feel intensely personal but are basically the same as billions of other love affairs that people have had, etc.
thats a play. A wants something. B actually agree, but cant agree openly. C say regulate, hold A responsible for problems, etc. the play beginns:
A wants more ressources and less regulation. Strong C make problems. B cant take position and free ressources, because C is strong and becoming stronger. A starts to make dangerous things. C is becomes even more opponent. A say ok, we need to slow down - then comes in B. Now B cant take position openly and say NO to slow down with reasons xx, yy. C is now weaker, because B can push and make C bigger problems. With C silenced and opposed by B who protects A, A can start to progress without C making problems, because B now supporting A and silences C.
C is like people who are against in any shape, be it against data centers, against copyright violations, etc..
B is WHG
A is AI companies
A few thoughts: I support AI acceleration to reach abundance and then and only then start regulating it, not before that.
Regulating early means just delaying abundance by 5 to 10 more years or maybe more.
I don't like to build something that will become useless due to AI after a few years. Let it advance to ASI (no need to release publicly) and then let everybody think about making it safe and aligned, then release.
I'm that simple.
What do you think?
Genuine question, because "abundance" is meaningless unless you qualify what you mean.
You're saying that we ask the ASI for "abundance" and everyone gets a mansion in silicon valley and doesn't need to work unless they want to? That doesn't seem like a realistic thing to be thinking about.
How do you think that AI will create "abundance?" Are you thinking that it will somehow magically come up with solutions to climate change, war, corruption, the wealth gap, or any of the other ills that keep the majority of humanity scrambling to survive? Or do you just mean abundance for stockholders?
I think that a chance of getting things like material post-scarcity, age reversal, possibly even biological immortality... might be worth a 10% chance of human extinction.
I mean, we already know more or less how things are going to go without super-intelligence. Disease, pain, suffering, everyone dying by age 120 or so, more struggle for bread, more wars about things that seem very important in the moment but won't be interesting to anyone other than history buffs 100 years from now, more love affairs that feel intensely personal but are basically the same as billions of other love affairs that people have had, etc.
Maybe it makes sense to take a risk.
A bunch of spherical bastards, the lot of 'em.
They need to bribe him more to get their regulatory capture.
SHOCK!